Needs-led

Evidence before another course.

Enter a prepared FY27 needs cycle directly. An AML need for Compliance Officers and an Operational Risk need for Branch Managers lead to different human decisions.

Start here

The question

What needs a response, and why this response?

What this answers

The evidence, decision, rationale, and next responsible action stay together, including when the response is a knowledge update.

Fictional example Prepared examples. No live product actions.

Salalem National Bank, its people, content, counts, forms, and records are fictional. Interactions reveal prepared examples, not client records. Nothing is saved, assigned, published, or executed by AI. Access and configuration are agreed separately. Training evidence does not establish job proficiency, legal compliance, or causal business impact.

Two roles, a stated evidence window

Keep the source and population visible.

FY27 covers Compliance Officers and Branch Managers for this worked example. AML has unfinished connected learning and upcoming renewals. Operational Risk has unanswered searches and identified manager intake asking for a clear reference.

Training needs analysis

What Salalem connects

Training needs analysis reads evidence within a scope. Source populations can overlap; search events, people, and renewal records are not an additive headcount.

Salalem National Bank

FY27 | Two needs for review

Fictional example

Record ID: CYCLE-FY27-NEEDS
Record date: 2026-09-10
Responsible person: Robin | Training administrator
Record status: Prepared evidence review

Evidence in this example

2026-09-10

Compliance Officer | AML & CTF: 8 of 12 requirements met; 4 not met | Connected learning | Read 2026-09-10
Annual AML/CFT Certification: 4 renewals due; Same Compliance Officer population | Due 2026-10-31
Branch Manager | Operational Risk: 14 unanswered searches; 8 distinct searchers | 2026-07-01 to 2026-09-10 | Reportable aggregate
Identified manager intake: Sam | Branch Manager; INTAKE-OR-SAM | 2026-09-08 | Requests a clear escalation reference

Inspect the sources and scope

Supporting records

Fictional example

Cycle scope

12 Compliance Officers | 8 Branch Managers

Evidence window 2026-07-01 to 2026-09-10 | Separate role populations

AML need

NEED-FY27-AML-CO

REQ-AML-CO | ACT-AML-CO-01 | RENEW-AML-CO-27 | 4 not met

Knowledge need

NEED-FY27-OR-BM

SEARCH-OR-27 | INTAKE-OR-SAM | Unanswered search and identified request

Privacy check

Reportable aggregate only

No named anonymous response | Below-floor results stay suppressed

The manager intake is identified and may name Sam. Anonymous pulse answers and search aggregates are not attributed to a named employee; their visibility respects the configured privacy floors.

These are prepared fictional evidence sources, not live measurements or employee ratings.

What this answers

Evidence with a period, source, population, and a question to answer

People record different reasons

Training is one of five choices.

The five choices are Train, Already covered, Defer, Knowledge fix, and Not a training problem. Robin records Train for AML and Knowledge fix for Operational Risk after reviewing each source.

TNA decisions

What Salalem connects

A human chooses the response. Conflicting statistics alone do not diagnose a process problem; that choice would need a recorded investigation, reason, owner, and follow-up.

Salalem National Bank

Prepared decision records

Fictional example

Record ID: DECISIONS-FY27-11
Record date: 2026-09-11
Responsible person: Robin | Training administrator
Record status: Human decisions recorded

The five decisions — one per need, each with a reason

Train
Already covered
Defer
Knowledge fix
Not a training problem

Train: AML & CTF | Compliance Officer; DEC-FY27-AML-CO | Unfinished connected learning and the renewal deadline justify a targeted refresher
Knowledge fix: Operational Risk | Branch Manager; DEC-FY27-OR-BM | The search evidence and identified request call for a findable escalation reference
Other response choices: Already covered | Defer | Not a training problem; Reuse a suitable response, retain a reason to wait, or route a human-investigated issue to its owner

Read the recorded rationale

Supporting records

Fictional example

DEC-FY27-AML-CO

NEED-FY27-AML-CO | Train

2026-09-11 | Robin | Prepare a targeted refresher and review its assessment before assignment

DEC-FY27-OR-BM

NEED-FY27-OR-BM | Knowledge fix

2026-09-11 | Robin | Publish the escalation reference and keep an owner responsible for review

Manager context

INTAKE-OR-SAM

2026-09-08 | Sam, Branch Manager | Requests guidance; does not diagnose a process defect

The decision records name the need and the human reason. Recording Train does not itself create, publish, or assign a program; a separate handoff follows.

The fictional decision form reveals saved examples only; it does not save your selection.

What this answers

Two recorded decisions grounded in different evidence

The response has an owner and a record

A draft for one need. Guidance for the other.

The AML need links to a targeted refresher draft. The Operational Risk decision links to the published Operational Risk Escalation Matrix, with Sam responsible for its next review.

Needs decisions and response handoffs

What Salalem connects

The training administrator must review the draft content and assessment, then publish separately before assignment. A Knowledge fix retains its document owner; a draft document would leave that follow-up open.

Salalem National Bank

Response lineage and next action

Fictional example

Record ID: HANDOFF-FY27-12
Record date: 2026-09-12
Responsible person: Robin | Training administrator
Record status: Handoffs inspected

Train | Linked draft: PROG-AML-CO-DRAFT; NEED-FY27-AML-CO | Human content and assessment review still required
Knowledge fix | Published guidance: Operational Risk Escalation Matrix; DOC-OR-02 | Owner: Sam, Branch Manager | Published 2026-09-12
Next document review: 2026-12-12; Sam | Keep DOC-OR-02 current and findable

Trace each need to its response

Supporting records

Fictional example

Draft origin

NEED-FY27-AML-CO | PROG-AML-CO-DRAFT

Linked 2026-09-11 after DEC-FY27-AML-CO | Targeted AML refresher

Publish boundary

Robin | Review, then publish

Content and assessment approval outstanding | No learner assignment yet

Knowledge response

NEED-FY27-OR-BM | DOC-OR-02

Linked 2026-09-12 | Operational Risk Escalation Matrix | Published v2

Responsible owner

Sam | Branch Manager

DOC-OR-02 | Review due 2026-12-12 | Separate from training-admin publication authority

These relations were prepared for this example. The AML draft proves a handoff, not publication or completed learning. The guidance link proves an owned document response, not a measured improvement in skills.

The needs-led story ends with reasons and handoffs. No AI execution, publication, or assignment occurs here.

What this answers

A linked draft and an owned knowledge response, with open work explicit

A complete answer

Two needs, two justified responses.

Bring a scoped planning question and the sources behind it. We can discuss the decision and handoff without replaying delivery or assuming every need becomes training.

Book a demo

Related scope

What changes

The unit of work becomes an evidenced need, a recorded reason, and a responsible next action.

What needs a response, and why this response?

If useful, see another habit

Continuous